War on Terror, Drinking Ages or Level of Intoxication - Essay Example

?POLITICAL SCIENCE Question Conservative vis-a-vis Liberal The New York Times reported on June 3, that the Alabama legislature has passed an immigration law that is now being billed as “the toughest of its kind in the country” and Alabama as “the new no. 1 state for immigration enforcement.” The bill includes the following measures: granting authority to police and law enforcement agents to stop anyone based on reasonable suspicion that a person is an illegal immigrant; bars illegal immigrants from enrolling in any Alabama college; obligates schools to determine the immigration status of their students and publish the same; requiring parents of foreign-born students to report the immigration status of their children; criminalizes the renting out of houses to illegal immigrants, and; prohibits businesses to deduct taxes from illegal immigrants (Preston 2011). A conservative would probably agree with all the Alabama measures against illegal immigrants. A conservative would think that since illegal aliens defied immigration laws they deserved to be treated like criminals and flushed out of their hiding places using all means. He will also consider as justifiable the use of stop and search measures on the basis of a vague rationale as reasonable suspicion, usually employed in anti-terrorism related drives, to ensure the apprehension of law breakers. On the other hand, a liberal, while realizing that illegal immigrants have violated immigration laws, will consider some of these measures as extreme, inhuman and unnecessary. A liberal will know how to balance between crime and punishment, and will not forget that illegal immigration is driven by the desire to find greener pastures and not to terrorize Americans. The punishment must fit the crime, but in any case no human being deserves to be treated like a rat. Question 2: Anarchy Anarchy, which is defined in its basic sense as lack of government, is considered an extreme political philosophy not unlike totalitarianism. It presupposes a political system where society is unfettered from any form of restriction, implying that even a simple law such as traffic law is anathema. It is characterized as a social order that lacks organization. Anarchic societies are characterized by the “lack of codified law and coercive authority, a penchant for processes that are participatory and spontaneous, and an inherent impetus among community members to associate voluntarily and cooperatively” (Amster 291). Despite the system’s ideal underpinnings, anarchy is evidently unpopular. Successful rebellions against governments in various times of the world’s history did not result into the establishment of anarchic societies, but of new governments that were instantly installed to replace the toppled ones. The utopian nature of anarchy imports impracticability, presupposing a society where individuals stand together on equal footing, a notion that is illusory. There will always be individuals who will assert themselves above others and establish themselves as leaders, a position that can only be sustained if the community is organized and restrictions are imposed. Governments or systems of hierarchy are, therefore, inevitable (Kenneth & Goldman ). Moreover, anarchy basically aspires for perfection, a condition impossible to achieve and more so to sustain. Nonetheless, anarchic societies do exist in the history of the world and even into the 20th century. This is exemplified by the Eskimo tribes of the North American Arctic, Pygmies in Zaire, the Yurok of North America, the Ifugao of the Philippines, the Land Dyaks of Sarawak, to name a few (Stringham 371-372). As can be seen, these societies are characterized by their small size, backward civilization and remoteness from the rest of the world, conditions that are impossible under a highly globalized world. Question 3: War on Terror The National Supremacy clause under Article VI of the US Constitution and the Reserve Clause of the Tenth Amendment have established the boundary between federal and state powers. The former set forth the supremacy of the federal Constitution and laws over state laws while the latter ensures that states have preeminence over issues that are not explicitly delegated to the national government. Nonetheless, the balance of power between the national government and the states had always been perceived as a tug-of-war from. During crises, however, this balance of power leans towards the federal government, exemplified by post 9/11, slowly eroding state power (Donovan 29, 32). The war on terror, a plan of action launched by the Bush government subsequent to the cataclysmic 9/11, decisively shifted the balance of power to the federal government’s side. Legislations were passed by Congress, not only to prevent, but actively pursue terrorists that resulted in encroaching upon the powers of the states. The Patriot Act, for example, allowed the federal government to conduct home searches, inspect tax and medical records and even records of books being borrowed from libraries as well as allowed access to phone calls and emails of ordinary citizens. The federal government’s encroachment into state turf not only involves patent anti-terrorism measures, but also policy measures often considered to be state business. The regulation of public health care facilities, importation of prescription drugs, K-12 education policies and driver’s licenses are now being placed under the authority of the homeland security. The war on terror has also deprived states of resources that were once within their reach during emergencies, such as the National Guard troops who, under the law are supposed to be under the command of state governors, but whose assistance was sorely missed during natural catastrophes such as Hurricane Katrina in 2005 because they were utilized in Iraq (Donovan et al 45-46). Question 4: Drinking Ages or Level of Intoxication States have the better right to determine drinking ages or setting intoxication limit. Under the Reserve Clause of the 10th Amendment, states exercise powers that have not been conferred by the Constitution on the national government and are neither prohibited by it for states to exercise (Elias 11). The Constitution limits the powers of the federal government to the following: collection of taxes; loans on behalf of the US; commerce, naturalization and bankruptcy laws; making of money and counterfeiting; post offices and post roads; the promotion of science and arts; the constitution of tribunals; piracies and other crimes in the high seas; the determination of a state of war, maintenance of an army, navy and militia and all regulations relative to them; jurisdiction over the district designated as the seat of government, and; all such other laws necessary to carry out all the aforesaid (Mann 1993). Since regulation of crimes committed within states is not one of those specifically delegated to the federal government, the regulation of DUI properly belongs to the state. As it is, DUI laws are presently seen as complicated not only because there are various factors that may either aggravate or mitigate such as an accompanying accident, speeding, age of the driver and those with him, and others, but also because both the federal government and various states have issued their respective standard blood alcohol level (BAC) for the different ages. The implication is that although an individual may have passed the federal standard, he may still be liable under state laws for drunken driving. Nonetheless, the federal government played a big role in jumpstarting DUI laws. In 2000, for example, Congress passed the 0.08 BAC standards, but since it cannot directly legislate on the matter, it provided incentives to force states to adopt the standards. States that have set higher levels of BAC than that suggested by the federal government will not receive their highway construction funds from the DOT (Blocker 211). Question 5: Interest Groups Fortune Magazine named the top 25 interest groups in the United States in 2001. These groups include gun enthusiasts, retirees, businessmen, lawyers, realtors, homebuilders, doctors, hospitals, educators, farmers, film makers, broadcasters, insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, and various others that have large interests at stake in the direction of government policies. Interest groups pursue the advancement of their agenda through direct lobbying and indirect lobbying such as supporting politicians. Interest groups are powerful and were deemed dangerous by politicians such as Madison. Nonetheless, their rights are upheld by the Fifth Amendment on the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances (Dautrich et al 330). Interest groups are more good than bad because they add to democratic processes through a cacophony of voices and interests they bring ensuring a market of free flowing ideas from which the best ones could be filtered from. The arguments in favor of interest groups are: vehicles through which ideas of ordinary people can be heard in Congress; exemplifies freedom of association sanctioned by the Constitution; an equitable opportunity for all groups to compete, and; provide the public information about issues. On the other hand, the cons are: politicians may become too dependent on interest groups money to get elected, making them hostage to interest groups rather than of the common good; groups with deeper pockets can exert lopsided influence on the government; large interest groups represent large business, whose aims do not necessarily jibe with that of the ordinary people; the large number of interest groups in the government slows down government processes, and; they are an affront to democracy because their leaders are not democratically elected; they work to benefit a few while transposing their costs to many (Dautrich et al 330-331). Question 6: Electoral College A democracy presupposes that the people choose their leaders directly and at large. The US, which supposedly epitomizes democracy, ironically deviates from this definition. Historical accounts show that the Convention rejected the idea of direct election because of their distrust of mass democracy and popular passions. This distrust was underpinned by the limited communication among the 13 states that first comprised the federation, which was thought to impede informed voting decision (Dewhirst 187). With the present advances in communication technology, that impediment no longer exists today. Yet, the Electoral College remains relevant because in an increasingly becoming multi-ethnic and multi-race system US, the tyranny of the majority is limited by an electoral system that makes the minority as important as the majority. The abolition of the Electoral College is supported by the following arguments: it contravenes the mandate of popular will in the election of the president; the system is archaic as the conditions that underpinned its choice are no longer present today; it is inherently unfair because the electorates apportionment do not faithfully reflect the population ratio, hence, resulting in favoring smaller states over big ones; it aggravates racial imbalance because most lightly populated states are populated by whites; it is predisposed to the status quo leaving third-party candidates virtually no chance under the “winner take-all” system, and; electors are free to disregard the will of the population they represent. On the other hand, opposing parties counter the pro-abolition with the following arguments: it ensures broad support of the winner; it promotes equality among the states because it forces equality of treatment between smaller and bigger states; minority voters do not lose importance because they can change election results; it promotes the two-party system because of the rule of absolute majority, and; it serves as part of the system of checks and balances, which is to limit the tyranny of the majority (Trapp, 87). Question 7: TV Sound bite The typical 10 seconds TV sound bite of today is enough for viewers to obtain informed political opinion. This is possible because it forces politicians to summarize and highlight the essence of their discourses and sophisticated journalism usually integrate visuals and other materials externally researched by journalists that can give the discourse perspective and easier comprehensibility by television audiences. The past few decades saw a shrinking TV sound bite. In 1968, the average sound bite had 60 seconds, but in 1988, it shrank to 8.5 seconds (Hallin 119). Some actually think that shrinking the sound bite is a good development because it prevents politicians from rambling on and forces them to summarize their ideas into a few words sans the empty promises and rhetoric. This will force politicians to encapsulate their ideas into simpler and more concise words and veer away from unnecessary trimmings to sweeten or make them more attractive to audience. Longer political discourses do not necessarily more informative exposition, but shorter sound bites ensure, at least, that the speaker goes straight to the most the most important and substantive points of his discourse. One reason attributed to the shrinking sound bite is the parallel evolution in journalism, which is seeing a more sophisticated and independent approach. Whereas before, journalists would allow politicians to dominate airwaves and television screens and extensively quoting speakers; today, discourses are dismantled and analyzed and integrated into other materials. The integration of visuals and other materials into discourses render them fresh easier comprehensibility (Fehrman 1-4). The only possible objection against this way of presenting political discourses is that journalists may inject more of their own perspectives into original materials depriving the audience of really seeing the actual point of view of the speaker. Question 8: US Citizenship Test Administering the citizenship test to all citizens at large for the purpose of encouraging political learning and understanding is impractical and may not eventually serve its purpose. First, it will be a dearth on the national government’s funds because of the potential costs of administering a nationwide test. Second, unless, the government penalizes failure to take the exam or offers benefits for taking it, is not likely that any citizen will actually take any interest in taking it. Either measure is not feasible because it will violate the Constitution. Third, administering citizenship test to encourage political learning and understanding is not within the purview of the federal government powers as enumerated in the Constitution, which administers such test only for naturalization purposes. US citizenship is acquired by virtue of the principle of jus soli or the citizenship acquired by virtue of being born within the US territory. Once an individual has acquired citizenship by birth or through lawful means, the government is prohibited from passing any law that abridges the immunities and privileges attendant to such citizenship. This means that the government cannot deprive a citizen from his rights and privileges, such as those constitutionally granted under the Bill of rights, on the basis of failing the citizenship test. Neither can the government offer benefits to those who will pass the test and deprive others who do not because there is no moral and legal basis for it. It would be ultra vires for the federal government to administer a citizenship test on every citizen to encourage political understanding and learning because the Constitution does not grant it this power. If, on the other hand, the states will individually administer the same to citizens within their respective jurisdictions, they will run afoul with the US Constitution provision on non-abridgment of the privileges and immunities. Moreover, they will have a difficult time justifying the same on the ground of police power. Works Cited Amster, Randall. Contemporary Anarchist Studies: An Introductory Anthology of Anarchy in The Academy. Taylor & Francis, 2009. Blocker, Jack and David Fahey, Ian Tyrell. Alcohol and Temperance in Modern History: An International Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO, 2003. Dautrich, Kenneth and David Yalof, David Prindle. American Government: Historical, Popular, and Global Perspectives – Texas. Cengage Learning, 2009. Donovan, Todd and Daniel Smith, Christopher Mooney. State & Local Politics: Institutions & Reform: The Essentials. Cengage Learning, 2009 Elias, Nolo. Legal Research: How to Find & Understand the Law. 15th Edition. Nolo, 2009 Fehrman, Craig. ‘The Incredible Shrinking Sound Bite.’ Boston.com. (2011). http://articles.boston.com/2011-01-02/bostonglobe/29339490_1_sound-bites-quotations-presidential-election/4 Hallin, Daniel. We Keep America on Top of The World: Television Journalism and the Public Sphere. Routledge, 1994. Janda, Kenneth and Jeffrey Barry, Jerry Goldman. The Challenge of Democracy: American Government in a Global World. 10th Edition. Cengage Learning, 2008. Mann, Frederick. US Federal Jurisdiction. Build Freedom Holdings, 1993. http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl08.shtml. Preston, Julia. ‘In Alabama, A Harsh Bill for Residents Here Illegally.’ The New York Times, 3 June 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/04/us/04immig.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha23 Stringham, Edward. Anarchy and The Law: The Political Economy of Choice. Transaction Publishers, 2007. Trapp, Robert. The Debatabase Book: A Must-Have Guide for Successful Debate. 4th Edition. IDEA, 2009. Read More